This data collection is the result of an evaluation of the
NEPHU program, conducted by the Police Foundation under the
sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In August
1989, the Bureau of Justice Assistance supported a grant in Denver,
Colorado, to establish a special Narcotics Enforcement in Public
Housing Unit (NEPHU) within the Denver Police Department. The goal of
the Denver NEPHU was to reduce the availability of narcotics in and
around the city's public housing areas ... (more info)

This data collection is the result of an evaluation of the
NEPHU program, conducted by the Police Foundation under the
sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In August
1989, the Bureau of Justice Assistance supported a grant in Denver,
Colorado, to establish a special Narcotics Enforcement in Public
Housing Unit (NEPHU) within the Denver Police Department. The goal of
the Denver NEPHU was to reduce the availability of narcotics in and
around the city's public housing areas by increasing drug arrests.
NEPHU's six full-time officers made investigations and gathered
intelligence leading to on-street arrests and search warrants. The
unit also operated a special telephone Drug Hotline and met regularly
with tenant councils in the developments to improve community
relations. The program worked in cooperation with the Denver Housing
Authority and the uniformed patrol division of the Denver Police
Department, which increased levels of uniformed patrols to maintain
high visibility in the project areas to deter conventional crime.
Using a panel design, survey interviews were conducted with residents
in the Quigg Newton and Curtis Park public housing units, focusing on
events that occurred during the past six months. Respondents were
interviewed during three time periods to examine the onset and
persistence of any apparent program effects. In December 1989,
interviews were completed with residents in 521 households. In June
1990, 422 respondents were interviewed in Wave 2. Wave 3 was conducted
in December 1990 and included 423 respondents. In all, 642 individuals
were interviewed, 283 of whom were interviewed for all three waves.
Because of the evaluation's design, the data can be analyzed to reveal
individual-level changes for the 283 respondents who were interviewed
on all three occasions, and the data can also be used to determine a
cross-section representation of the residents by including the 359
"new" persons interviewed during the course of the evaluation.
Information collected includes years and months lived in the
development, assessments of changes in the neighborhood, whether the
respondent planned to stay in the development, interactions among
residents, awareness of anti-drug programs, ranking of various
problems in the development, concerns and reports of being a victim of
various crimes, perceived safety of the development, assessment of
drug use and availability, assessment of police activity and
visibility, and personal contacts with police. The unit of analysis is
the individual.

Access Notes

One or more data files in this study are set up in a non-standard format, such as card image format. Users
may need help converting these files before they can be used for analysis.

Universe:
All public housing developments in Denver, Colorado, that
were targeted by the NEPHU program.

Data Types:
survey data

Data Collection Notes:

Additional data discussed in the Final Report are not
part of this release. Specifically, data collected from official
records in Denver are not available as part of this collection, nor
are data resulting from an evaluation of a NEPHU program in New
Orleans.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
This data collection is the result of an
evaluation of the NEPHU program, conducted by the Police Foundation
under the sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In
August 1989, the Bureau of Justice Assistance supported a grant in
Denver, Colorado, to establish a special Narcotics Enforcement in
Public Housing Unit (NEPHU) within the Denver Police Department. The
NEPHU program was primarily enforcement-oriented and employed
traditional policing methods, but the unit focused new energy and
resources on tackling drug problems in Denver's public housing units.
The NEPHU's six full-time officers (one lieutenant, one sergeant, and
four detectives) made investigations and gathered intelligence leading
to on-street arrests and search warrants. The unit also operated a
special telephone Drug Hotline and met regularly with tenant councils
in the developments to improve community relations. The program worked
in cooperation with the Denver Housing Authority and the uniformed
patrol division of the Denver Police Department, which increased
levels of uniformed patrols to maintain high visibility in these
areas, to deter conventional crime. The goal of the Denver NEPHU was
to reduce the availability of narcotics in and around the city's
public housing areas by increasing drug arrests. It was hoped that
this would, in turn, lower the incidence of both violent crimes and
property crimes, reduce residents' fear of crime, and increase
residents' confidence in the police.

Study Design:
With the assistance of the Denver Housing
Authority, two matched housing developments were selected in which to
monitor the progress of the NEPHU program. The Curtis Park Homes
development is located in northeast Denver. The population of this
area of Denver is predominantly American-born, of Mexican ancestry,
although the residents of the Curtis Park Homes are overwhelmingly
African-American. The Quigg Newton Homes development is located in
north Denver and has been predominantly Hispanic since the 1950s.
Using a panel design, survey interviews were conducted with residents
in these housing units, focusing on events that occurred during the
past six months. Respondents were interviewed during three time
periods to examine of the onset and persistence of any apparent
program effects. In December 1989, attempts were made to contact all
households in the two target developments. In June 1990, second-wave
interviewers revisited units where Wave 1 interviews had been
successfully completed and reinterviewed the original Wave 1
respondents if they still lived in the units. New respondents were
solicited if the Wave 1 respondents had moved from the households. The
third wave of the survey was conducted in December 1990. Interviewers
again revisited all the units in which interviews had been completed
in Wave 1, selecting replacement respondents if those interviewed in
the past had left the households. In all, 642 individuals were
interviewed, 283 of whom were interviewed for all three waves. A total
of 1,366 interviews were conducted. Because of the evaluation's
design, the data can be analyzed in two different ways. First,
responses by the 283 respondents who were interviewed on all three
occasions can be tracked to reveal individual-level changes in
experiences and opinions during 1990. Second, because of people
moving in and out of the projects during the course of the year, 359
"new" persons living in the target developments were interviewed
during the course of the evaluation. By including them, each wave of
interviews also produced more representative cross-sections of the
residents of Curtis Park and Quigg Newton at each point in time.

Sample:
Two matched housing developments in Denver were chosen.
Out of 751 households in the two housing developments, interviews were
completed with residents in 521 households in Wave 1. Of these, 422
households were reinterviewed in Wave 2, and 423 were reinterviewed in
Wave 3. New respondents were solicited from the households if the
original respondents no longer lived there.

Data Source:

personal interviews

Description of Variables:
Information collected includes years and months
lived in the development, assessments of changes in the neighborhood,
whether the respondent planned to stay in the development,
interactions among residents, awareness of anti-drug programs, ranking
of various problems in the development, concerns and reports of being
a victim of various crimes, perceived safety of the development,
assessment of drug use and availability, assessment of police activity
and visibility, and personal contacts with police.

Response Rates:
Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales:
Several Likert-like scales were used.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: